Talk:The Rocket's Red Glare
You really don't like the U.N do you? Phalanx Actual 05:40, May 5, 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I don't like them at all--B1blancer2 04:18, May 8, 2012 (UTC) Just in case you missed my comment there. Good writing doesn't necessarily mean you try to convince everyone to agree with you. It's when you take a stand on something so well people have to see it the way you intended them to, even if you yourself are of the completely opposite belief.|15:18, May 8, 2012 (EST)}} Alright, look at this story as a "what if" scenario. It's unlikely to happen, but then again, wasn't it unlikely that a person could survive an atomic bomb, but you can. This may be a what if, but it's a what if I intend to see through. Really though, I can be a but lazy sometimes, which is why my War of 2160 article doesn't go into too much detail about how the war started. That is left up to the reader to think about, and even make a prelude if they want.--B1blancer2 21:51, May 8, 2012 (UTC) This story is at least grounded in realism, it's not like the US has giant space death lasers that can rip a Marathon Class in half, or they made a ship on par with a Covenant Supercarrier. It's more like, what if all went wrong before this war started, what if there were more angry debates between US and UN. The protest shootings were the flashpoint for a powder keg of earlier disagreements, which are up to the reader to decide "What made this volatile situation?"--B1blancer2 02:23, May 9, 2012 (UTC) :Then please explain these earlier disagreements, you don't have to elaborate on them right now. But do bear in mind that, and I'm quoting AR here, the UN is the United States' pet project. Waging war on it is not beneficial to the US, nor would it make sense to have happened in the first place, no matter what disagreements there may be. The people of the US have no say in starting a war, nor would the US or the UN consider it an option over "disagreements". This kind of thing is more likely among Middle Eastern factions or terrorist groups. As Grizzlei said, alternate universes are not exempt from realism. You may not like the UN, but that doesn't refute the numerous points other users have made against your idea, many of which you still haven't addressed properly. Just as a friendly warning, if you insist on sailing a ship full of holes into the open sea, you'll sink straight to the bottom very fast. 23:56, May 8, 2012 (EST) The US disagrees with the UN here, because, despite the UN being the US's pet project, a falling out occurs during the late 21st century, which involves enemies of the US being harbored really by the UN, which leads to a falling out. While the US is in the UN, they don't trust them after it.--B1blancer2 04:19, May 9, 2012 (UTC) :But why would the UN harbour enemies of the US? In fact, to get to the root of the problem, why do you want the UN to act like they hate the US? Don't give an answer based on what you think of the UN, give an answer based on realism. What motivates the UN to suddenly turn on the US, and in a way, turn on itself? 0:39, May 9, 2012 (EST) They turn on the U.S. because they feel the US is dangerous, and could stunt the growth of world peace, which is their ideal and so, other countries that are enemies of the U.S. join the UN in their mission for world peace etc., and give up their individuality, just eventually becoming the UEG. However, the US is not in the mood to be a part of a one world government, feeling it is dangerous for one government to have so much power, and the possibility of abusing the people with that power. And so, the US and UN, despite having the best of intentions on both sides, have that disagreement, and when the US finds out the UN have let their enemies into this, that hurts diplomatic relations a lot, and gives the US new reason not to join, as their enemies may have power over them if they do.--B1blancer2 05:21, May 9, 2012 (UTC) One of the main misconceptions that you have is that the U.N. is a single, unified organisation: it may be named the "United Nations", but its member states are far from united. All criticism of the U.N. comes from the fact that it is not a unified peacekeeping organisation: in the modern era, it has more become a place where world leaders debate while crises occur. This is, in fact, where the common euphemism that the U.N. "writes angry letters", rather than intervenes in world affairs, comes from. It would, and I apologise if I come off as rude here, be preposterous to assume that the U.N. could feasibly unite the rest of the world against the U.S.A., when a significant number of U.N. member nations are American allies, and when the U.S. essentially controls the U.N.'s actions. As one of five permanent U.N. security council members, the U.S. has the right to veto any military resolution not in its best interests, and the only requirement for a resolution to fail to pass is a single veto: hence why there is so much frustration over the fact that Russia and China have both vetoed U.N. resolutions to intervene in Syria, where a Civil War is raging. The U.S. holds significantly more sway, however, as most of the U.N.'s funding comes from the United States. And do mind, that by canon, the U.N. does not unify because member nations simply "give up their individuality for world peace": it becomes a world government after the Interplanetary War, when global superpowers, being unable to combat the Frieden and Koslovic movements alone, unite out of necessity under the auspices of the United Nations: these countries do not disappear, but are simply concretely allied, with their combined armed forces becoming the UNSC. The U.N. eventually becomes the Unified Earth Government after this war, solidifying the ties of alliance between nations on Earth. Understand, before this event, in which all nations essentially become the UN, the UN was not a unified organisation, but a loose assemblage of national delegates. Essentially, you're treating the UN too much as another country, before it becomes a proper government. This is, of course, not including the fact that the U.S., despite all of its military strength, has no chance of victory if it is fighting the rest of the world: politicians would never make the decision to effectively declare war on every other nation on Earth, as even the least intelligent would still see it as effective suicide. Ok then, yes, it would be tough to get our "allies" against us, but most countries don't like us anymore. Most just plain out don't help us anymore in Afghanistan, maybe some UK forces. Other than that, I don't see any "allies" of the US today not backstabbing us.--B1blancer2 23:53, May 9, 2012 (UTC) True that. Trust me, Europe, with the exception of Germany and some of the Eastern European countries, is quite literally speeding towards a Weimar Republic, as are we.--B1blancer2 23:59, May 9, 2012 (UTC) :This I very much doubt. Anyway, as per previous discussion that is seemingly attempted to be derailed, the US funds a large portion of the UN. The UN largely talks, issues strongly worded sanctions - and little else. Why would the UN seek to distance itself from the US when that constitutes a very substantial fraction of funding to the UN. I mean, look at the UN ruling on Palestine and the US' responce which was to cut funding to a UN branch to empasize its displeasure. -[[User:Leo Fox|'Leo Fox']] http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/halofanon/images/a/a9/Leo_Fox_icon.png (My bark is probably bigger than my bite) 00:13, May 10, 2012 (UTC) Am I trying to stall for time? Yeah, kind of. I mean, i'll admit it right here, that's why I keep these things going so long. To buy time. I may as well admit it here.--B1blancer2 00:37, May 10, 2012 (UTC) :So by that admission, more or less you waive the right to contest the 'tagging and bagging' of this page in such a fashion, like you have contested in the past. :-[[User:Leo Fox|'Leo Fox']] http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/halofanon/images/a/a9/Leo_Fox_icon.png (My bark is probably bigger than my bite) 00:46, May 10, 2012 (UTC) That, and i'm sick and tired of having a solution to one problem and then another being brought up like it's the groundhog in Caddy Shack, and then I can't find a solution.--B1blancer2 00:54, May 10, 2012 (UTC) :There's a very simple reason for that, and one we've been trying to tell you for ages: This idea does not work. 21:33, May 9, 2012 (EST)